Share this story

Less than eight years after its maiden launch, the Falcon 9 booster has become the most dominant rocket in the world. Modern and efficient, no rocket launched more than the 70m Falcon 9 booster launched last year. Barring catastrophe, no rocket seems likely to launch more this year.

In part, SpaceX has achieved this level of efficiency by bringing a Silicon Valley mindset to the aerospace industry. The company seeks to disrupt, take chances, and, like so many relentless start-up companies, drive employees to work long hours to meet demanding engineering goals.

While founder Elon Musk’s ambitions to settle Mars get most of the public’s attention, the company’s workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, which almost never leaves Earth orbit, is the reason SpaceX has soared to date. And on this vehicle, Musk’s company has imprinted its ethos of disruption and innovation by seeking every opportunity to improve the rocket.

Although this has caused headaches for customers like NASA and some suppliers, constant tinkering has allowed SpaceX to maximize performance of this rocket. By regularly upgrading the Merlin engines, shedding weight with lighter materials, and using super-chilled rocket fuel to maximize density, the Falcon 9 rocket now is about twice as powerful as it was during its initial flight. Rarely during its more than 50 launches since June 2010 has a Falcon 9 rocket not had a handful or more changes from the previous edition.

All the while, SpaceX has had a singular goal for the Falcon 9 rocket: to build the most perfect and efficient orbital rocket it could. Now, finally, the company seems close to taking a final step toward that goal by closing the loop on first-stage reusability. As soon as next Monday, but more likely a bit later this month, SpaceX intends to launch the “Block 5” variant of the Falcon 9 rocket for the first time. Musk has said this fifth revision of the Falcon 9 should mark the final major change for the booster.

The Block 5 rocket (not seen here) will be optimized for landing again, and again, and again.

SpaceX

The company has a lot riding on the revamped booster. SpaceX intends to fly each Block 5 first stage it builds a minimum of 10 times and—depending on your willingness to accept Musk’s enthusiastic outlook—perhaps many more. Ten flights would be hugely significant, as SpaceX has thus far only ever reused each of its Falcon 9 rockets a single time. Additionally, the company hopes to reduce the turnaround time between launches of a Falcon 9 booster, now several months, to a matter of weeks.

Achieving such a nirvana of low-cost, rapid access to space would represent a tremendous feat for SpaceX. For a company that aspires to one day land humans on Mars, this is the essential first step. Moreover, by freezing the design of the Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX can free up its engineering talent to focus on the “Big Falcon Rocket” and its upper stage spaceship. And by flying each Block 5 booster multiple times, it can release its skilled workers to assemble that much, much larger booster.

The upcoming launch of the Block 5 rocket, therefore, marks the end of the beginning for SpaceX.

Close calls

To find a Falcon 9 launch of comparable magnitude to the forthcoming Block 5 launch, one probably has to go back to December 2015. The stakes were incredibly high then, too. Six months before, in June, SpaceX had suffered the first failure of the Falcon 9 booster, a catastrophic break-up of the second stage at about 150 seconds into the flight. The Dragon spacecraft ascending into space, laden with NASA cargo valued at more than $100 million, was lost.

SpaceX spent nearly half a year assessing and fixing the problem before returning to the launch pad. For that December flight, SpaceX doubled-down on its philosophy of taking risks. The Falcon 9 booster standing at the pad three days before Christmas was the first one using a much more powerful variant of the rocket, known as the Falcon 9 Full Thrust, or Block 3.

Further Reading

This ambitious booster had about 30 percent more capability than its predecessor, with more powerful engines and slightly larger tanks that accommodated super-cooled liquid oxygen and highly refined kerosene. Other modifications included upgraded grid fins to steer the rocket on its return through Earth’s atmosphere and landing legs.

But with this return to flight mission, it was not enough to debut an entirely revamped rocket. For the first time, SpaceX would also attempt to return a booster to Earth for a vertical landing along the Florida coast. Always be innovating, pushing.

Later that night, after the successful flight and landing, Musk held a teleconference with reporters. Ars asked Musk how confident he had been in success of the mission, both launching the new booster and sticking the landing.

The second flight of the Falcon 9 rocket, in December 2010, offers a good view of the first variant of the booster.

NASA

This was the first demonstration flight for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program.

NASA

On January 6, 2014, SpaceX successfully launched the THAICOM 6 satellite. This was the third flight of v1.1 (aka Block 2) of the Falcon 9 booster.

SpaceX

In January 2015, SpaceX attempted to land a v1.1 version of its booster on a drone ship for the first time. It... failed.

SpaceX

On December 22, 2015, SpaceX launched the "Full Thrust" version (aka Block 3) of its Falcon 9 rocket for the first time.

SpaceX

This mission also marked the first successful landing of a Falcon 9 first stage.

SpaceX

On April 8, 2016, SpaceX succeeded in landing a first stage on a drone ship for the first time. This was a "Full Thrust" rocket, too.

SpaceX

On March 30, 2017, SpaceX successfully re-flew a first stage for the first time with the SES-10 mission. This was a "Full Thrust" version of its booster.

SpaceX

On August 14, 2017, SpaceX flew the Block 4 upgrade of its Falcon 9 rocket, which included engine thrust improvements.

SpaceX

"I wasn't at all confident that we would succeed, but I'm really glad of it," he replied. "It's been 13 years since SpaceX was started. We've had a lot of close calls. I think people here are overjoyed."

Musk has since told confidants that it was this Block 3 version of the Falcon 9 rocket that put SpaceX on top of the commercial satellite launch competition, elbowing out Russia, China, and Europe’s state-run rocket companies for a lot of this business. The more powerful Block 3 rocket also allowed SpaceX to begin launching heavier payloads for the US military. With Block 3, Musk felt as though he had the best rocket in the world.

420 Reader Comments

Several sources suggested SpaceX may reduce the price of the Falcon 9 rocket to further pressure its beleaguered competitors, including US-based United Launch Alliance as well as international providers in China, Russia, Europe, and elsewhere. However, none of these competitors is likely to go away, at least not soon. In the United States, United Launch Alliance remains a trusted partner of government agencies, and none of the other global space powers is likely to abandon its launch industries soon.

Yeah I think those sources are just hoping for lower prices. There is absolutely no reason for SpaceX to lower their prices. Cost =/= Price. SpaceX is certainly profitable at the current price. Lower prices would just mean less revenue and they will need billions in cashflow to fund Starlink and BFR. Less revenue means more of that CapEx spending paid for by raising equity which means more dilution to shareholders. It also would mean less control by Musk and he is an absolute control freak when it comes to corporate governance. Simply put every dollar SpaceX gets in launch sales is a dollar they don't need to raise from investors.

Now if hypothetically New Glenn launches on time and starts selling launches at a price which is more economical than F9/FH it would start to cut into SpaceX's manifest and then SpaceX may adjust their prices to avoid losing launch contracts but that is likely 2020+.

TL/DR: If you are the lowest cost provider and are supply limited and nobody has a chance in hell of matching your prices and you need billions in CapEx you don't reduce your prices. You don't have to be a business genius like Musk to see that.

Don't know where you are getting your info but SpaceX has reused a number of Block 4 first stage boosters. Its the second stage engine that SpaceX has never reused.

He didn't say never reuse he said only reused once (as in two flights total) which is true. The block 3 and 4 boosters which have been reused have only been reused once. SpaceX is looking to go from 2 flights per booster to 10.

Shotwell and other company officials have said their initial goal with the Block 5 rocket is to fly each booster 10 times before significant refurbishment and to bring down the time between a rocket launch from months to weeks. In the aerospace industry, such rapid reusability of a rocket’s first stage is unheard of.

It wasn't that long ago that "the aerospace industry" was saying that reusing a first stage is unheard of. No current orbital launch provider even has a reusable first stage design in active development.*

And yet here we are.

*Blue Origin isn't providing orbital launch ability yet. I have no doubt they'll get there with New Glenn, but they're not there yet. They'll be the other disruptive when they do, not representation of the current aerospace industry players, which are stagnant.

Edit to add that I find it absolutely amazing that every single launch is testing something new with no two identical rockets. That's exactly why SpaceX is where they are today, achieving so much with no legitimate competitors in sight. They never say "that's good enough" and stop, they keep working at it.

Even the design freeze on Block 5 is so they can certify for crewed launch - and focus even more on BFR, a rocket so ambitious that it'll make Falcon 9 redundant. And that's even more amazing.

A significant fraction of those 6000 employees must be doing R&D related to new and improved rockets. If the market for launches is not growing and Block 5 of the Falcon 9 is the end of the line, I wonder what Musk's plans are?

Block 5 is the end of the line for the Falcon 9 (and likely FH by extension). It isn't the end of the line for rockets at SpaceX.

"The company seeks to disrupt, take chances, and, like so many relentless start-up companies, drive employees to work long hours to meet demanding engineering goals."

I continue to see SpaceX (and Tesla) get dinged for this (but not by you, Eric!), with the idea hovering in the foreground that Musk is a galley slave driver, burning these poor kids out in his quest to become Warlord of Mars.

But how different is it from the kind of schedule insanity Apollo engineers (average age: 26) underwent in 1962-1972? Young engineers and techs join SpaceX because they want to be part of something important, and the sacrifice seems worth it to them. And unlike the Apollo engineers and astronauts, few have marriages to break up at this point. They can save that for their next gig a few years down the line, which a SpaceX entry on their resume sets them up tolerably well for.

A significant fraction of those 6000 employees must be doing R&D related to new and improved rockets. If the market for launches is not growing and Block 5 of the Falcon 9 is the end of the line, I wonder what Musk's plans are?

Block 5 is the end of the line for the Falcon 9 (and likely FH by extension). It isn't the end of the line for rockets at SpaceX.

Plenty of R&D to still do.

Perhaps better to say this is the end of Chapter 1 in the SpaceX story. Or at least, the end of Volume 1.

I'm sure NASA is pumped that SpaceX is focused on building the BFR while Crew Dragon slips. Granted you don't need your whole engineering department for qualification testing, but us armchair quarterbacks don't see any progress.

There's no evidence that SpaceX is not moving Dragon 2 forward as quickly as humanly possible, or that applying more resources to it now will make it move faster. You can't make a baby in a month with 9 women.

SpaceX initially confused almost everyone the way Eric was because they didn't start using Block N publicly until the initial discussion about how block 3 would be upgraded to the interim Block 4 before the final Block 5. That they'd split Full thrust into 3 versions internally at that point wasn't known, and everyone jumped to the incorrect conclusion that they'd just changed their versioning system.

I'm sure NASA is pumped that SpaceX is focused on building the BFR while Crew Dragon slips. Granted you don't need your whole engineering department for qualification testing, but us armchair quarterbacks don't see any progress.

Rocket engineers are not going to help with capsule certification. That's two entirely separate teams.

The main rocket impact NASA is seeing is not from BFR, but from the switch to Block 5 on the Falcon 9s. It's such a substantial redesign, NASA wants to effectively treat it like a new rocket, since it needs certification against all the changes. But there's no way SpaceX doesn't switch to Block 5 as early as possible. Why certify to Block 4 when they're not building new Block 4s?

SpaceX initially confused almost everyone the way Eric was because they didn't start using Block N publicly until the initial discussion about how block 3 would be upgraded to the interim Block 4 before the final Block 5. That they'd split Full thrust into 3 versions internally at that point wasn't known, and everyone jumped to the incorrect conclusion that they'd just changed their versioning system.

Yes. Following a more rigorous versioning scheme it would be:

v1.0 (there was actually a v1.0.1, which was an upgraded version that kept Merlin 1C but never flew)v1.1v1.2v1.2.1v1.2.2v1.2.3v1.2.4v1.2.5 (Block 5)

I'm sure NASA is pumped that SpaceX is focused on building the BFR while Crew Dragon slips. Granted you don't need your whole engineering department for qualification testing, but us armchair quarterbacks don't see any progress.

Its hard to push a crew module when NASA is still in love with ULA and the "totally better than Falcon, but we're still working on it" Space Launch System.

For that December flight, SpaceX double-downed on its philosophy of taking risks. The Falcon 9 booster standing at the pad three days before Christmas was the first one using a much more powerful variant of the rocket, known as the Falcon 9 Full Thrust, or Block 3.

I think you mean "doubled down." "Double-downed" is not a thing. Also, "doubled down" is not a compound word and thus shouldn't be hyphenated.

Per statements of SpaceX employees it is more complex than that. There are multiple blocks for each of version 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2

So there was a Version 1.0 block 1 then block 2, then version 1.1 block 1, 2, 3, then version 1.2 block 1, 2, 3, 4, and now 5. Elon didn't start talking about blocks until Ver 1.2 block 3 which made things confusing. Plus Elon just loves nonsensical naming. Sometimes calling the rocket by version # only, sometimes by nickname "full thrust", sometimes by joking nicknames "fuller thrust", sometimes by block, sometimes by combinations of the above.

SpaceX doesn't have to worry about demand quite as much as other providers, simply because with Starlink they will be creating much of their own demand, which could on it's own drive 20-30 flights per year. At that point, the customer price really doesn't matter and internal costs do. Hence all the work on fairing recovery and now re-entering the second stage with a massage ballute in tow. If successful on those fronts, they really could hit the $10-$15 million per flight costs they talked about years ago. Now the external customer price they charge probably won't come down much, but they will be in the driver's seat in the launch market for quite a while.

The only other company that could cause them problems is likely to be Blue Origin, but I have pretty big doubts about how they go from getting a billion a year in sugar daddy money to becoming a profitable company on it's own. Not to mention the overall pace of innovation has been baked into the company in a far more gradatim culture than anything that looks like a ferocitor one. Case in point, Blue has built a massive factory at the cape, but is only now really getting the tooling and equipment put together to start building New Glen. SpaceX has the initial tooling for BFR already, and its sitting in a massive tent so it can be tested out long before the factory is built.

It wasn't that long ago that "the aerospace industry" was saying that reusing a first stage is unheard of. No current orbital launch provider even has a reusable first stage design in active development.*

That's not entirely true. Boeing got a contract to develop a reusable first stage, so they are building one. It isn't getting much attention because it's intended for small military payloads, not human exploration or science, but it is under active development and intended to fly relatively soon.

The company now has in excess of 6,000 employees, and just meeting that payroll and keeping large facilities in California, Texas, Florida, and elsewhere operating probably costs on the order of $1 to $1.25 billion, experts told Ars. At a rate of $62 million per launch, it would take 20 launches a year just to cover these expenses. And this assumes that vehicle production costs are zero, which of course is not true.

The bolded part is not accurate. What do you think SpaceX is paying those 6,000 employees to do? 80% of the value of a Falcon 9 is added in house. That is the "production costs". Raw material and purchased parts are the other 20% of the value.

SpaceX also has other revenue-generating sales and services, such as building and operating Dragon, building payload integration hardware, integrating payloads, and custom quality assurance services for government customers. Since all of these are required to launch, it takes few launches to make payroll.

SpaceX probably needs about 12 to 15 launches per year to break even, and a large part of their workforce is not required to hit this rate. To simply continue operating F9 and FH they could likely survive on 6-8 launches per year.

It wasn't that long ago that "the aerospace industry" was saying that reusing a first stage is unheard of. No current orbital launch provider even has a reusable first stage design in active development.*

That's not entirely true. Boeing got a contract to develop a reusable first stage, so they are building one. It isn't getting much attention because it's intended for small military payloads, not human exploration or science, but it is under active development and intended to fly relatively soon.

It wasn't that long ago that "the aerospace industry" was saying that reusing a first stage is unheard of. No current orbital launch provider even has a reusable first stage design in active development.*

That's not entirely true. Boeing got a contract to develop a reusable first stage, so they are building one. It isn't getting much attention because it's intended for small military payloads, not human exploration or science, but it is under active development and intended to fly relatively soon.

Note the date on your link. ULA and various others were all saying it was impossible until SpaceX showed that it wasn't (in 2015).

1) SpaceX want's to turn a F9B5 booster around in 24h, not weeks. Basically just gas and go.2) SpaceX needs to launch 4,425 Starlink satellites by 2025. This requires about 20 additional launches per year that still require new second stages.

I'm sure NASA is pumped that SpaceX is focused on building the BFR while Crew Dragon slips. Granted you don't need your whole engineering department for qualification testing, but us armchair quarterbacks don't see any progress.

Commercial crew has been delayed mainly by reduced funding, the developmentprocess itself where NASA says do it the way you want, then says I don't like it thatway try it again, and finally the complex certification process which itself is bottle-necked within NASA by personnel limits imposed by budget limitations. NASA'sown watchdogs having been warning about the last one. Let's not forget aboutthe whole ASAP/LoC risk boondoggle with MMOD orbital height/density modelgoal post moving.

A cynic might comment that the efficiency, low cost, and speed with CRS-1 led tochanges in program management for CCdev to keep that from repeating. After allpowerful forces might not appreciate CCdev going as smoothly to contrast againstSLS and Orion development.